Gut Check. What's your reaction?

[Danoff]

It's the holidays, you see the scene in the viral photo below - a homeless guy is sitting outside a NY shoe store in cold weather with no shoes on. A cop knees down to give him a new pair of boots.

What's your reaction?

Do you say "How nice! Giving shoes to the needy around the holidays - this is humanity at its best! The cop is a saint. If everyone did something nice like this just once, the world would be a better place."

or do you say "The homeless guy probably has shoes, he's waiting for someone to give him a new pair of shoes so that he can sell them to buy drugs. This is panhandling, preying on kindness - humanity at its worst! The cop is reinforcing this behavior, and if not for him I wouldn't see homeless people when I go to the shoe store."

 

[mattythedog]

I don't tend to judge things or situations until I know the whole picture. So I voted for the third option.

 

[homeforsummer]

Mine is option #4: Police publicity stunt.

 

[Danoff]

So in the spirit of the pole, "police publicity stunt" is the cynical choice. That'd be number 2.

 

[homeforsummer]

Not necessarily. The cop may legitimately be buying shoes for the homeless man, who may legitimately be using them to warm his feet instead of selling them for drugs.

But my first thought wasn't "aww, how nice" or "why the hell is he bothering?", it was "this looks like a publicity stunt".

It's the inclusion of the cop. Had it just been John. A. Random buying shoes for a homeless guy, I'd probably have picked option #1.

 

[Danoff]

The point of the question is how you view the situation. Do you view it cynically? Or do you take it at face value.

 

[Zenith]

Put in me in #3.

 

[homeforsummer]

The point of the question is how you view the situation. Do you view it cynically? Or do you take it at face value.

Both. I view the scenario at face value, but I'm cynical about the motives of the photograph.

Perhaps it's best I just click option #3...

 

[Danoff]

Both. I view the scenario at face value, but I'm cynical about the motives of the photograph.

Forget the photograph. You're there at the scene seeing what the photograph depicts. Nobody is taking pictures. You're supposed to react to the act not the photo.

(Also the photo was taken by a tourist who was coming to help the homeless guy)

 

[Northstar]

I re-enact the scene from American Psycho.

Seriously, I choose 2, would have chose 1 if it wasn't for the fact he was sitting outside a shoe store.

 

[F40LM]

I chose

"I don't make decisions."👍

 

[Joel]

I re-enact the scene from American Psycho.

Seriously, I choose 2, would have chose 1 if it wasn't for the fact he was sitting outside a shoe store.

Same here, the cop and the fact he's outside a shoe store, just doesn't quite pass the sniff test.

 

[homeforsummer]

Forget the photograph. You're there at the scene seeing what the photograph depicts. Nobody is taking pictures. You're supposed to react to the act not the photo.

In that case, #1.

 

[Danoff]

I chose

"I don't make decisions."👍

How very decisive...

 

[Lissa]

I went for 1.

There are good people in the world, and not all homeless people are junkie scum.

 

[GTsail]

My first thought was that the cop was being extremely considerate.

My second thought was that since the shoeless guy was in front of a shoe store, then maybe the shoeless guy was a pan-handler.

My third thought was that maybe the cop had seen the shoeless guy before, and therefore knows that the guy is un-likely to be a pan-handler.

So I've picked option # 1

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[F40LM]

How very decisive...

Seeing what mattythedog said made me think wowie, if you don't know all the facts you shouldn't judge at all.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I voted for the first choice.

I'd rather everybody who claimed to be homeless was helped than risk missing an opportunity to help a person genuinely in need because others were too busy making assumptions about his or her situation.

Thankfully i've never been struggling just to survive, but if I was i'm sure that passersby walking on and pretending not to have seen me would destroy me.

 

[Joel]

I voted for the first choice.

I'd rather everybody who claimed to be homeless was helped than risk missing an opportunity to help a person genuinely in need because others were too busy making assumptions about his or her situation.

Thankfully i've never been struggling just to survive, but if I was i'm sure that passersby walking on and pretending not to have seen me would destroy me.

When I donate to the homeless, I try to give food coupons and such. You can't easily trade a coupon for a free slice of pizza for drugs or alcohol.

 

[opelgt1969]

Link to story behind photo:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/new-york-cops-act-of-kindness-goes-viral/?hpt=hp_t3

 

[Danoff]

Thankfully i've never been struggling just to survive, but if I was i'm sure that passersby walking on and pretending not to have seen me would destroy me.

If I saw you on the street begging I would walk right past you pretending not to have seen you. Because you were struggling to survive? No, because you're not struggling to survive.

 

[photonrider]

You would do that to MarinaDiamandis? What kind of member are you, Danoff?

As for the OP - Serving and Protecting, Danoff, serving and protecting - except this time in uniform.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

If I saw you on the street begging I would walk right past you pretending not to have seen you. Because you were struggling to survive? No, because you're not struggling to survive.

How would you know that somebody begging wasn't struggling to survive without making an assumption? Do people need to reach a certain level or image of poverty or distress before we stop and help? Should people even need to ask for help or should they be helped regardless?

I'm no saint but I like to help others as much as I can, whether that's by putting a few pounds in a charity box or helping to change a wheel by the roadside.

In my opinion a large problem in my area (a contrast of well-off and below poverty line), if not the whole country, is that people would rather not know or get involved even when they could potentially save someones life (of course, they will still gossip to friends about how they were there when the man in the local paper article dropped dead in front of them).

 

[Danoff]

How would you know that somebody begging wasn't struggling to survive without making an assumption?

Here's how:

Note that when income goes to zero, government charity still sits at almost $50k for someone with a kid. It'd be less if you didn't have a kid of course, but it's far from zero.

How else do I know:

That's what it looks like when someone hits hard times. How else do I know:

Nobody, NOBODY in America needs to be living and begging on the street. The people who are do so because they get paid substantially to be there. The salvation army will take you in, give you a place to sleep, a shower, a meal, clothing, and even help you get access to the kinds of government charity - like housing, food stamps, etc. that are in the chart above. They'll do this for as long as it takes.

So how do people end up on the street when there is all this help around them in every single major city in the United States? The answer is usually drugs and alcohol. Many homeless shelters won't take someone who is drunk or high (salvation army included). The reason is because they know that these people are not looking for help, they're looking for a way to continue to afford a drug or alcohol abuse problem. The guy in the photo in the OP has apparently been running the "I have no shoes" outside of a shoe store scam for years. And people have witnessed that specific bum getting new pairs of shoes.

Think about it for 5 seconds, the last thing you'd give up if you were homeless in new york in the winter is shoes. And if someone stole your shoes, you could go to the Salvation Army and get "new" ones.

Every single homeless person you see on the street is either there by choice, or completely insane. If they're insane, giving them a few bucks or even a pair of shoes is not going to help them, they need to be in an institution (unfortunately this usually happens after they commit a crime and go to jail). If they're not insane, they're there by choice, and "helping them" is supporting that choice - which is why they continue to harass and depress us, it's lucrative.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Personally I can't allow myself to count on the measures put in place by the government or others to help people.

 

[Danoff]

...absolutely do as much as you feel you should. But know that if you're giving directly to someone on the street (as opposed to putting money in the salvation army box), you're almost certainly supporting a substance abuse problem.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

But know that if you're giving directly to someone on the street (as opposed to putting money in the salvation army box), you're almost certainly supporting a substance abuse problem.

I generally ask them if they need anything in particular and then go from there. I wouldn't allow my own girlfriend to spend my money without supervision, let alone a stranger!

 

[cphbullet]

Here's how:

I keep a copy of this in my back pocket so when I'm out i know lol sorry i shouldn't troll.

I don't give to the homeless in edinburgh mainly because every time i see one of them they're sitting next to an empty bottle of methadone:tdown:

 

[nealcropper]

I keep a copy of this in my back pocket so when I'm out i know lol sorry i shouldn't troll.

I don't give to the homeless in edinburgh mainly because every time i see one of them they're sitting next to an empty bottle of methadone:tdown:

You may have seen me.

Lol.

 

[Ardius]

The third option doesn't make sense. Selecting it is a decision. Perhaps it needs to be worded better.

This reminds of the old "glass half full/half empty" question. People like to use it to simplify psychology down to a basic yes/no answer. Its not as simple as that. Just like the glass of water, my reaction is based on logical conclusions - I consider a glass half empty if I just see it with no context as more likely it has been emptied and left than filled and left. I don't consider that a direct correlation of whether I'm optimistic or pessimistic.

What makes someone optimistic or pessimistic on a given subject does not mean they are the same on every subject. And it also doesn't really draw a conclusion on whether their reaction is a reflection of their overall psychology or a specific reaction to that subject.